Psychological distance is the mindset of individuals and how they process information (how they integrate and weigh veracity cues). When psychological distance is deemed further away, positive information is weighted more heavily. In contrast, when information is psychologically close, negative information is more focused on. 


In relation to conspiracy theory endorsement, threats to one's groups could be deemed "psychologically close," because the threat is near the individual. Because of this, the individual would view the negative information, like a threatening conspiracy theory, to be likely true. This makes the individual more likely to endorse a conspiracy theory.

Psychological Distance as a Moderator of Negativity Bias

The individual's previous expectations for the information can effect how they judge it depending on whether the information meets or clashes with their expectations.

Expectation Violations as a Moderator for Negativity Bias

There are different ways in which information can be negatively framed. The way information is framed can depend on concept valence or semantic negation. Concept valence, which is whether the information is a positive or negative concept, is more closely related to the effects of negativity bias. Semantic negation is how the information is worded/framed that makes it come off as positive of negative.

Sources of Negativity as a Moderator for Negativity Bias

- psychological distance
- expectation violations
- sources of negativity

Syracuse University

Humans are more likely to think that a negatively phrased statement is true than a positively phrased one when the content is the same. 

Negativity Bias and Truth Judgements

Jaffé, M. E., & Greifeneder, R. (2020). Can that be true or is it fake news? New perspectives on the negativity bias in judgments of truth. In R. Greifeneder, M. Jaffé, E. J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 115–130). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429295379

Can That Be True or Is It Fake News? New Perspectives on the Negativity Bias in Judgments of Truth

Through a series of techniques/approaches, individuals are able to judge whether a statement is true or false. This includes the C&C Approach and steps to gauging plausibility. 

How do individuals judge truth?

Bad information is more salient than good information, negative instances attract more attention, negative information is processed more thoroughly, and there are more possible false statements. 

Why negatively phrased statements seem more likely to be true

Cooperative principle: Automatic initial belief that people are telling the truth when talking to you.

The maxim of quality: People should not share information they believe to be false and should not share something that lacks adequate evidence.

Why People are Predisposed to Expect the Truth

- Because of the cooperative principle and maxim of quality, people expect to be told the truth. When presented with misinformation, they are initially inclined to believe it is the truth. 

- Misinformation spreaders can incorporate negative statements to take advantage of negativity biases. This could be through either method of creating negativity (concept valence or negation). 

- Using the concept of psychological distance, those spreading misinformation could frame their arguments to feel more psychologically close to the readers, making the impact of negativity biases more pronounced. 

How Negativity Biases Contribute to the Spread of Misinformation

- Investigate how framing different contexts of information may impact an individual’s truth judgement.
- Investigate whether relevance of a statement to an individual may affect an individual’s judgement of truth
- Investigate offline versus online context judgements 


Learn Before

Related

Learn After